Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.3.4 Subbiah

[subbiah <subbiah@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ram,

Regarding (1) and (2) my only point, which you seem to be agreeing with, 
is that when a sponsored organization asks for an IDN equivalent in a 
number of languages, they need to ensure they have clear support from 
each of the languages/language communities they seek to get a script in. 
They should be given, those where they can demonstrate such support. And 
the easiest way to do that would be to go through a regular application 
process for each langauge they are interested in, just like the 
non-sponsored IDN gTLD application process.

And what I am suggesting is capturing that idea if there is  support  as 
a support statement or simply as an alternative view. I state it again. 
Tt can certainly be modified, its just a first stab.

"All gTLD applications should be treated on a case-by case-basis and no
special provision should be given to the concept of "sponsored gTLDs"
since a candidate gTLD string that may be considered "sponsored" in one
language/culture may not be considered as such across all
languages/cultures."

Subbiah


Ram Mohan wrote:

> For the record, I would like to state that in response to (1) and (2) below,
> the definition of a "sponsoring organization" as one that has approval from
> every country in the world is one that basically stops any organization from
> becoming a sponsor - after all, even the UN is not representative under
> these suggestions.  The suggestions in (1) and (2) are overly broad.  We
> know that all registries must conform to the law of the land in which the
> TLD is offered - if a nation decides to not let .aero work in their
> jurisdiction, it is unfortunate but not redeemable by any statement this WG
> or ICANN may make.
>
> To (3), that a registry is for-profit or not-for-profit does not change its
> obligations under contract to ICANN and thereby to the Internet community,
> which really what we ought to focus on.
>
> We have general agreement on (5) that priority rights as such do not exist.
> However, we also have general agreement that as far as possible, confusingly
> similar labels should not be allowed so as to ensure that the general
> Internet community does not get snared by phishing or other deceptive
> practices.
>
> -Ram
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ram Mohan
> e: rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx | m: +1.215.431.0958
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of subbiah
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 5:32 AM
> To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-idn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] Item 4.3.4 Subbiah
>
> Item 4.3.4
>
>
> I notice that there has been some previous debate on this before my 
> joining this WG by a few people , particularly on one of the previous 
> call recordings. My impression was that there had been some 
> support/agreement of the notion that sponsored gTLDs should be treated 
> no differently than "commercial" IDN gTLDs  from the point of view 
> whether a single "worthy" applicant should be given the ASCII version 
> and all IDN-equivalent (meaning same concept) gTLD strings in every 
> language. This seems not to be reflected in the current support statements.
>
>
>
> My own two cents on this:
>
>
>
> (1)   Sponsoring organizations, while reasonably global,  may not 
> represent EVERY country in the world and so not deserving of every 
> language.
>
> (2)   Supporting organizations that maybe global may not actually 
> clearly enjoy the full support of all portions of society and 
> government. For instance, the private sector airline association in a 
> given member country where the market is regulated maybe told by the Air 
> Force that it is the rightful owner of   .aero in that language.
>
> (3)   The widely and incorrectly shared view that "sponsored" somehow 
> means "non-profit" can be shown to be quite untrue with the example of 
> ".jobs" - a sponsored gTLD. Thus, what may pass or be acceptable as 
> sponsored in one country may not be acceptable in a another culture. 
> e.g. Singapore has a Ministry of Manpower (i.e. jobs).
>
> (4)   Given the troubling ICANN history in registries/applicants pushing 
> the limits or re-interpreting what was initially understood to be the 
> case, setting any precedent that a single applicant can get more than a 
> single language gTLD (i.e. Non script-variant) in one go (ie. equivalent 
> meanings), would be going down a slippery slope that will no doubt 
> someday lead to its adoption eventually in commercial "gTLDs" as well.  
>
> (5)   Best to let every sponsor of a gTLD apply for every language 
> equivalent  IDN gTLD separately, making the case separately, as if it 
> were just another non-sponsored gTLD application and let the merit of 
> each language request speak for itself alone.
>
>  Given these views I have, I would like to see a new statement at  
> Agreement, Support or at the very least an Alternative View that 
> captures my own thoughts and what I believe was mentioned in previous 
> discussion. For  starters it could be something like the following:
>
>
> "All gTLD applications should be treated on a case-by case-basis and no 
> special provision should be given to the concept of "sponsored gTLDs" 
> since a candidate gTLD string that may be considered "sponsored" in one 
> language/culture may not be considered as such across all 
> languages/cultures."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/726 - Release Date: 3/18/2007